accept every recruiter that contacts you on LinkedIn the moment you click "available". Don't filter too strongly, just accept everything that won't be a hassle to try the interview at. Then just practice through real interviews.
Slightly fancier paste bin with markdown support that I want to turn into a group editing service that takes inspiration from pull request style workflows.
It's not a LibraryThing or GoodReads; it's meant for libraries that are institutions. That said, I don't think there is anything stopping an individual person signing up and entering their collection, but there would be no point in paying the fees unless you had (say) a unique scholarly collection and wanted to lend books to other libraries - and if so, in the long run you'd likely be better off seeing if a library wanted to acquire your collection.
The only thing preventing me from jumping right onto this is the fact it doesn't seem to be an oauth2 provider, and it doesn't seem to have the verify/reset/etc jobs necessary for username & password.
Verify/reset/etc is always what pushes me away from doing multi-user webapps. Its a headache every time due to needing to think about e-mail, and I'd love an all-in-one oauth2 provider with signup and etc thats super lightweight and just does everything through an API.
Hi there! Engineer on the team here (and the one actually doing some of our auth and jobs stuff recently). We currently integrate with Google via oauth2 for social login, and plan to add more providers soon (GitHub coming next). The underlying mechanism is using Passport.js, which in turn uses oauth2 for most of their provider integrations, but that is abstracted so we can change in the future without breaking Wasp users. How would you envision Wasp itself being an oauth2 provider as beneficial vs integrating with other more popular providers?
As for username & password - correct, we do not do any email verification and reset right now. We actually changed the name from email & password to username & password to reflect the fact that we don't have tight email integration yet in Wasp. However, that will be coming soon, and once we do have first-class email support we plan to enrich that login method to have email verification with password reset, perhaps magic links, etc.
So long story short, we are trying to move quickly to add more auth options but be deliberate in how we integrate everything to ensure they all play together nicely. Please do check us out if it seems interesting and drop into Discord to let us know how we can improve to fit your use cases. Thanks!
Jumping in on this, as someone who has evaluated a lot of these over the years… you cannot predict the auth needs of future customers… don’t waste time building bespoke per authentication provider OAuth2 based authentication options… just implement an OpenID relying party or just go all the way and support the OpenID Connect standards.
Then I can use anything I want, by way of the myriad of self hosted and commercial services providing OpenID based authentication service endpoints, Auth0, Keycloak, Okata, etc. The predominant mechanism for these sorts of “auth service” is OpenID Connect, because it really does immediately get you 80% of what you want from authentication out of the box with no additional work, saving heaps of time, provided you need these kinds of features and a built in framework username and password style auth system is inadequate and as long as the pain of running (or paying for) the separate service is acceptable.
And to tie this to their request, this would facilitate you offering an auth service by way of having the wasp DSL build infrastructure as code configurations for an open source auth service like keycloak, or even partner and white label an exiting vendor service as a premium service extra at $/month…
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that relying solely on per-provider integrations would not be ideal (for us as maintainers, or our users). But for now, we are using Passport.js just to help us quickly bootstrap maybe a half dozen social logins to get our users started. In the long run, I can imagine deeper integrations with Auth0 et al. and possibly building out some of the other mechanisms like you describe!
While supporting a couple of the most common ones directly is worth it, building deeper integration with a specific auth as a service provider is thinking about the process backwards.
The business value for the authentication as a service companies is to make it easy to Integrate with them in order to benefit from the extra capabilities they offer, via standard mechanisms that make their service a drop in component of a larger stack.
Authentication Services are already commoditised, and they are complementary to your business, and you don’t even have to do extra work to commoditise this particular complement! Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking it’s worth doing more. Auth0 can give me SMS based magic links, while simultaneously tying those to an azure Active Directory primary user to determine if the owner of the mobile phone number is authorised to use a given application. I have all that power, all that and more via your tools and frameworks… anywhere that supports the OpenID Connect standards as a relying party. Don’t think “deeper”, just think about getting the standard part done, and leave deeper authentication stuff to the company that want authentication to be their entire business. It’s worth noting that OpenID Connect does enable using almost any other social provider a customer might want, since having a big swathe of social auth options is usually feature #1 for an authentication as a service product or service.
Also it looks like passport.js supports being an OpenID Connect relying party already thanks to a couple of libraries already on NPM. Looks like it was a good choice of JS library/framework for this job, (I don’t live in JavaScript so I stopped keeping up with all the libraries and frameworks years ago, so I have no idea how ubiquitous or obvious the choice of Passport.js is)
Hi there! Yep, we plan to add many more social login options. I'm confident all of those on that site will be supported. As with our first implementation (Google), each will be enabled by Wasp users by changing a few lines in their Wasp file and adding the appropriate envars. We're just refactoring it a bit as we add a few more to speed up the internal process of exposing them. Thanks!
Buddy this is the most corporate bootlicking statement I've seen in a while. I think I see what I hope you're going for and would love to hear that this advice is oriented towards achieving your own goals and not the goals of someone you don't fundamentally agree with.
I originally drafted several paragraphs in defense, but I think it's a bit of a tangent and better addressed in a separate comment.
Csikszentmihalyi did a study on happiness, the results being the notion of flow. There's a book and papers, but basically the result is that you're happiest when you're completely absorbed in a challenging task that you are qualified for (state of flow). The inverse is that you're unhappy when you're not challenged and doing something that's low skill (apathy).
Csikszentmihalyi called it the paradox of work. The study showed that they have their most positive experience on the job, but even when they feel good, they'd report that motivation was low. They'd report surprisingly low moods during leisure, but keep on wishing for more leisure.
One theory is that they'd disregard the quality of immediate experience, and base motivation on the cultural stereotype of what work is like. Another is that the perception is based off their goals in relation to it - someone investing energy into achieving their own goals (e.g. finishing a season of a show) is more motivated than that energy being invested in achieving someone else's goals (making the boss rich).
So, the notion of achieving your own goals is probably getting the way of your own happiness. Perhaps the goals are wrong. Perhaps it's a culture problem.
I think there's lots of models missing in mainstream Western culture. There's alternate goals like becoming a shokunin - this endless goal to climb to a higher level of mastery, knowing you can never reach the top.
There's tawakkul, where you have absolute faith in God's goodwill; there's no need to rely on anyone or anything. You keep to a standard code of ethics and find a way to practice that. You're honest when you could be punished for honesty, forgive when a situation allows vengeance, charitable when you could use more money, and so on.
Haha, yeah. I guess things like Cargo bikes don't exist. Nor does just bringing your stuff onto the train and putting it into it's cargo holds. Or bringing your cargo bike onto the train.
Yup, private carriages are the only option for your occasional weekly or monthly tasks.
I guess its also just outright impossible to just allow for mixed zoning that'd allow for daily grocery shopping as well.
I've written in another comment that I'm very much in favor of cheap, small city EVs without all the safety features mandated in a modern car. I don't think we need a ton of iron to go shopping. But I also don't think it's practical to go all the way down to bikes - biggest velo vehicle might at most carry an adult, a child and groceries, while offering zero protection from the weather and very little safety, compared with the smallest and flimsiest hard-shell EV.
And I'm saying this while owning... let me count... 4 bikes, one of which is electric. And I absolutely love Uber electric scooters.
But no matter how I try to get creative, I just can't think of a way where you can have bike infrastructure covering everything. Too many pieces missing. Where would you park all those cargo bikes near train stations? And again, what do you do in winter with two kids?
Small city EVs on the other hand require no new infrastructure, zero major investments, are a fraction of the cost of a car, are non-polluting, and do 90% of what a normal car does. And when going on holiday - yes, you can take the train, which is what I'm actually doing btw.
All they need is a very small regulatory change. Allow no-highway cars with speed limits and none of the safety features of modern cars. Just do that.
I don’t believe anybody has ever suggested that bikes should cover everything.
People have pointed out that most people can use bikes for pretty much everything, but obviously there will be a need for the occasional car.
Some people will need to use cars more, other less. But if you make the simple mindset change of first planning to bike there and then falling back to the car if you deem it infeasible, we’re already most of the way.
Most of the safety concerns for bikes disappear as soon as a certain amount of bikers are in the streets and the infrastructure isn’t actively hostile to them.
> Most of the safety concerns for bikes disappear as soon as a certain amount of bikers are in the streets and the infrastructure isn’t actively hostile to them.
Even in the Netherlands, bicycles was the most dangerous mode of transportation in 2021, with 207 fatalities. Cars came in second with 175 deaths.
This is a really good point. If we start adding bicycles to the US, more people will die. And we will need to have a greater percent of bicyclists than the Netherlands before the death rate starts to drop off. Having safe bicycle routes is a long way off.
When a car kills a cyclist it's not the bicycle being dangerous, and you can't compare numbers directly without normalizing by some metric (hours, km, trips). Although in the latter fallacy I believe correcting it will make bikes look worse.
Also keep in mind people of all ages are allowed to ride bikes, which is luckily not the case for cars. This source does say elderly and children are more likely to be part of cycling accidents (not necessarily fatal) https://www.veiligheid.nl/kennisaanbod/infographic/infograph...
Also driving under influence is (hopefully) much more prevalent in case of cyclists.
Hence, car drivers switching their transportation mode to bikes don't have the same risks as the entire cycling population.
And more people die in car accidents each year than in wars. You need to compare against the number of trips made and I suspect they are substantially greater for bicycles.
No way “most” people can use bikes for pretty much everything.
I get what you are advocating for. I have had several periods in my life where I used a bike as my primary form of transportation. But it only works well in a pretty narrow set of circumstances.
The point is that within the boundaries of city life, it can absolutely work for most trips, provided the infrastructure is not completely car-centred.
Within the bounds of a childless, healthy, individual, who can work remote, living in a city that is well designed for bikes. Unfortunately this is a nearly negligible percentage of the existing population/infrastructure. There are many many decades of change, including universal rent control, required for the rest of us.
It's ironic that you ask where to park cargo bike while at the same time proposing EVs. Where do they park? Where do they drive? We are occupying massive amounts of land for car infrastructure completely covering it in concrete and thus contributing to urban heating. At the same time we have study upon study that shows that people are happier in places where they can walk/bike instead of driving.
Small EVs are the type of cars that are needed the least. They are a car for those cases where you essentially did not need a car.
> At the same time we have study upon study that shows that people are happier in places where they can walk/bike instead of driving.
People prefer living in places they can dress in t-shirts and shorts. But trying to dress in a t-shirt in the snow won't make you happy.
It's true that all else being equal, a walkable city is the best. But we don't have that, and we're not likely to have it soon. All we can do is work on a solution for today and tomorrow. And I really don't see OP's original point of trying to skip EVs.
Because vast amounts of public money has been spent and continues to be spent on cars that could save lives and prevent massive ecological harms were it spent on adequate transport technologies.
Tesla alone has received enough in subsidies from california to build a decent transit system for about a quarter of its population.
The infrastructure is not a problem at all. Just use the one you have. If it can serve traffic demand using cars, it can serve ten times the same traffic demand using bikes (slightly less when using cargo bikes). Stop the segregation fantasy where drivers are allowed to get away with pretending that all roads default to limited access. They don't. Roads where first built for walking, then for walking and various form of animal transportation, then for walking, animal and cycling. When cars entered the picture, all the other forms of road use technically did not go away, outside of the small set of limited access roads that came up a few decades later.
Yes that makes sense. Steam engines had to be larger to be more efficient so the best size for them was a locomotive.
Internal combustion engines are sized at a point where they are profitable and efficient.
Electric motors allow us to make terribly small cars, and their small batteries will mean even more efficiency improvements. Combined with self driving abilities and we no longer need to own our own car…just hop on the city infrastructure and get driven to your destination.
In fact if we make it small and light enough you could suspend the car from a metal rail and now have an extra lane up in the roadway above the regular traffic. And then you can add another metal rail layer…and another. And you no longer need intersections because the rails can dip down or up to cross each other. So the biggest source of traffic latency (stoplights) and bandwidth limitations (not enough road surface area) will be eliminated.
Eventually we may build entire city blocks pre-fabricated with vertical and horizontal elevators inside, so you no longer need your own vehicle to navigate. Heating costs will be proportional to the external surface area and not to the volume enclosed by the building.
Our e-trike takes 2 kids, groceries, has full weather protection and brings joy to rider, occupants and many around. Protected bike lanes add the safety, but let's make no mistake, all the safety issues arise from motor vehicles.
As you allude to, this is a massive zoning issue (especially in the US). The infrastructure required to move people from their houses to places of work and shopping is insane, given where all those houses and places of work and businesses are. To make trains viable for everyone, you have to rework the entire built environment to move all of those places into different locations so that people can get from one place to another efficiently.
I live in a small/midsize city with relatively ok public transit for its size and the only places I ever take it is to downtown or the airport - places where parking logistics are terrible and it's easy to get to on public transport. Anywhere else (like going to the store or work) and getting there takes hours without a car. Living in areas that have better connections or better walkability triples my housing cost, so I own a car and drive. Cities need to be significantly more dense for more trains to make sense, but that density means clearing out all of the less dense buildings and building new. That's extremely costly and doesn't actually help the environment because of the massive amount of carbon needed to fix that everywhere.
Buddy you had every ability to half ass that on-call and no one would have faulted you for it and it would have resulted in the corporation realizing they needed to harden that duty better.
Sure, I'd love to have real friendships where friends stay by my side through the good and bad times. Unfortunately it turned out to be difficult to make good friends like that. So I've decided to never do anything that leads to these expectations and "you owe me" situations.
